I think I was thinking of situations where the wifi owner redirects you to their impersonation site with their own cert, but a normal browser will pop up a big warning about that. Also if the site properly uses HSTS and you’ve been there on that machine before, then you’re protected from being directed to a http impersonation site. A VPN will protect you from both (assuming the VPN us trustworthy), but if you’re savvy you don’t need it. But then the type of person who needs the kind of simplified explanation for “why VPN” that you get in ads is not savvy.

No, I’m definitely talking about https. Could be this is no longer a thing tho, I need to look it up.

I’m under the impression https can be defeated by a man-in-the-middle attack if you’re not paying attention. Haven’t looked into it recently to be sure if that’s still the case or a solved issue, though. But that was one reason to use a VPN while on untrusted wifi, supposedly.

Your toes do have toetips, just nobody gives a shit about them.

He want to bone

I think the issue is that winning long-term requires investing in the defeated country, like you guys did with Japan. Rather than just stopping bombing them and leaving them to fend for themselves, breeding resentment. Resentment is gonna happen regardless, of course, which is why the best move is to not start a war in the first place.

Hah, I get it now. Tho it does leave me wondering why use money for that? Is it just cause you have it on hand and lack anything more suitable?

Commodore 64

I’m under the impression that no, the US does not have enough conventional weapons to do this. If he were to escalate to non-conventional weapons that would change things but I don’t want to think about how the rest of the world would react to the US carpet bombing an entire country with nukes…

I would not pay $155 for that shit.

It also meant and still means cheap cask wine. taps head

Yeah okay.

Didn’t know paypal were doing that…

Sadly I don’t think that’s on the cards. :(

I will object when this BS heads out my way eventually, of course. But if some law gets passed requiring the OS to be able to tell programs the age of the user, I would vastly prefer it just be something set by the sysadmin at account creation, and that the user not be able to change it themself. That last part mainly because if the user can change it themself, even braindead politicians will realise it is not doing anything and they will legislate something else. Probably something worse.

Honestly, no. I’m aware there are other options. But if the govt is mandating something, I’d rather it made sense. Demanding everyone set an env var is nonsense.

Honestly I’m not sure. I feel like I’d want that as a parent tho, personally.

In every OS I know of including linux, you need admin/su rights to create a user account. If the age is tied to the account that at least prevents tampering without admin/su access.

I suspect something the nonprivileged user can effortlessly change would be deemed insufficient. :P

The way this is written, it would just be a case of entering your age or DOB at account creation, which wouldn’t be so bad. Indeed, this would be the kind of parent-empowering solution I’d like to see, since it kind of assumes the admin of a device (who sets up user accounts) is an adult who will enter the correct info for their kids.

Of course, there’s always the concern they might try to push for adding 3rd party age attestation after the fact, with this being the thin end of the wedge. And it’d be a bit of a pain for the various linux distros to organise a compliant solution even IF it’s just adding a new parameter to useradd and the associated “age signal” API for applications to query.

Gotta pick a good starter to carry you through the early game.

Came here to say this. Don’t know anyone who leaves their shoes on inside.